[Labyrinthos]

when you say “the money or property acquired by fraud is the value of the college education...” that suggests to me that the courts would recognize that degrees granted by some schools are more valuable,monetarily,that those granted by others.That's not what I am suggesting; rather, the person fraudulently misrepresented their qualifications to obtain something of value that that they would not have obtained if they had told the truth.

With that said, the SCOTUS decision does raise the issue of whether the parents can be convicted of fraud if their child did not knowingly participate in the scheme, since the child, not the parents received the fruits of the crime.

[Alberta's Child]

The key point here is very subtle, but it's a huge one from a legal standpoint. A fraud charge hinges not on whether the culprit has gained something through illicit means, but whether the culprit has deprived one or more others of something that rightfully belongs to them.

A common legal definition of fraud (emphasis is mine): The intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right.